On 31. 03. 20 17:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
I sent out the V2 version of the Change on Friday and then promptly
managed to injure myself and be away from email until today. I've read
through the email threads again this morning and I decided that,
rather than try to address them one by one, I'd try again with a V3
that hopefully answers some of the repeated questions and concerns on
that list.
Please see the newly-updated
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ELN_Buildroot_and_Compose
for more details[1].
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes%2FELN_Buildroot_and_Compose&type=revision&diff=569904&oldid=569809
A vote has been initiated at FESCo issue tracker:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2365
I am reposing my reply here:
The change proposal received overly negative feedback by the packager community
as represented both by RHEL¹ and non-RHEL maintainers. Despite being reworked
several times, none of this feedback was reflected in the proposal, only new
reasons why this is going to be done the original way were added. It seems that
feedback is collected not to find the best technical solution, but rather to
find ways to justify a solution that's already decided.
Key questions in the *Detailed Description* remain "out of scope of ELN" or not
answered clearly. The proposal should address the impact on all major packaging
styles, and while one side of the spectrum (packagers preferring single-spec
with conditionals) is covered, there are very few concrete details on the other
(packagers interested in simple spec files or completely uninterested in RHEL).
The affected packagers are concerned that the current proposal does not in fact
benefit Fedora (to an extent that would justify the disruptions), but rather
addresses mainly a downstream RHEL concern using Fedora's resources.
While benefiting the entire Fedora/RHEL/CentOS/EPEL ecosystem is certainly a
good goal, I believe that doing this in a way that alienates a significant part
of our packagers is a disservice to Fedora. The concerned packagers believe that
Fedora is (and should remain) the upstream for RHEL, not RHEL itself. This might
be shifting us to the undesirable mindset that Fedora is only a test bed for
RHEL or a RHEL alpha version.
For me this feels like a step back to the [discontinued Fedora
Core](https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-January/msg00091.html),
where the packages that were included in RHEL could only be maintained by their
RHEL maintainers. Fedora relies on the contributions of non-RHEL developers —
and those often have little interest in downstream work. If we alienate the
community contributors, it will ultimately lead to a worse RHEL down the road.
For the stated reasons I am *-1 for this change in its current form*.
As said on the mailing list, I'd appreciate if you take the feedback provided by
the packagers more seriously and adjust the proposal accordingly.
As a side note, I'd like to continue the discussion on the mailing list, as I
believe there's still plenty to discuss. That's why I'll also post this text
there, so you can quote-reply.
-------
¹ For any interested Red Hatters reading this: Apart form the feedback received
on the devel mailing list, I discussed this internally with my Red Hat team,
Python-maint .The whole team shares my concerns, as do other members of Core
Services.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
